What should be the criminal/civil consequence of having/performing an abortion (2 Viewers)

[IvanKaramazov]

Well it does say born not waiting to be born.

I think the argument is that "persons born or naturalized" implies that some persons are not born or naturalized.  And parts of the 14th amendment explicitly protect people, not just people who have been born.

I don't like this argument because it boils down to semantic hair-splitting that (IMO) shoe-horns my policy preferences into a section of the constitution that the authors and ratifiers would not have seen themselves signing onto.  But then again, that was also the case with Roe.

 

[NCCommish]

I think the argument is that "persons born or naturalized" implies that some persons are not born or naturalized.  And parts of the 14th amendment explicitly protect people, not just people who have been born.

I don't like this argument because it boils down to semantic hair-splitting that (IMO) shoe-horns my policy preferences into a section of the constitution that the authors and ratifiers would not have seen themselves signing onto.  But then again, that was also the case with Roe.

To be clear I never liked Roe from a legal standpoint. I always thought that it should've just been codified from the start. Democrats had the votes more than once but wanted to keep the bogeyman alive. And I think if you stretch the 14th you open a can of worms. So now every fetus that crosses into America is an American citizen with all the rights there of? Not sure that's been thought through to its logical conclusions. 

 

[NCCommish]

So what I expected is now being talked about. If the Texas law stands Newsome has proposed the same law in California with a twist. This time you get to sue assault weapon owners. The government isn't doing the enforcement so it's all good right? 

Now to be clear I'd find this to be as bad an idea as the Texas law but once you open Pandora's box there is no closing it. And this is what some on the SC warned about so I was surprised they let it stand. I think they just wanted to kick the can but that doesn't seem to have been a great way to go here.

 

[dkp993]

So what I expected is now being talked about. If the Texas law stands Newsome has proposed the same law in California with a twist. This time you get to sue assault weapon owners. The government isn't doing the enforcement so it's all good right? 

Now to be clear I'd find this to be as bad an idea as the Texas law but once you open Pandora's box there is no closing it. And this is what some on the SC warned about so I was surprised they let it stand. I think they just wanted to kick the can but that doesn't seem to have been a great way to go here.

Yeah I was going to post Gavin’s tweet about that last night, just didn’t have the energy for the gun debate I thought could ensue.  

While I absolutely hate they allowed the suit angle to stand, I think the ability to sue for this is incredibly stupid, I don’t disagree with Newsom’s take.  Texas unlocked the door and the SCOTUS propped it open, can’t blame others for walking through it.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

Forgive the question, but it's been a little bit and I am foggy this am.  If I am remembering right, TX sidestepped the SC by basically saying it's not illegal, but by making it so anybody who participates in the abortion can be sued, it effectively make it illegal b/c people don't want to risk it? 

Then since the SC said that was cool, and didn't overturn it, that opened up other actions like CA - and they are saying that while it's not illegal to own an assault rifle, people can sue owners of them for having them?   I assume similar - people selling them, owning them, transporting them, whatever? 

 

[NCCommish]

Forgive the question, but it's been a little bit and I am foggy this am.  If I am remembering right, TX sidestepped the SC by basically saying it's not illegal, but by making it so anybody who participates in the abortion can be sued, it effectively make it illegal b/c people don't want to risk it? 

Then since the SC said that was cool, and didn't overturn it, that opened up other actions like CA - and they are saying that while it's not illegal to own an assault rifle, people can sue owners of them for having them?   I assume similar - people selling them, owning them, transporting them, whatever? 

I would guess so

 

[the rover]

Forgive the question, but it's been a little bit and I am foggy this am.  If I am remembering right, TX sidestepped the SC by basically saying it's not illegal, but by making it so anybody who participates in the abortion can be sued, it effectively make it illegal b/c people don't want to risk it? 

Then since the SC said that was cool, and didn't overturn it, that opened up other actions like CA - and they are saying that while it's not illegal to own an assault rifle, people can sue owners of them for having them?   I assume similar - people selling them, owning them, transporting them, whatever? 

state action is unconstitutional.  because this is private action it arguably circumvents the constitution.  so individuals can sue gun manufacturers, sellers, etc., just like individuals in Texas can sue abortion providers.  at some point the SC needs to stop this or we no longer have a constitution.

 

[the rover]

ultimately the legal theory is that where a law is held to be unconstitutional, it just can't be enforced by the government but it still exists unless it is repealed.  if there is a mechanism for private enforcement, then it can be enforced.  this is the brainchild of one of Scalia's clerks.

 

[ekbeats]

After the date of viability has passed it's flat out murder in my opinion.

 

[KarmaPolice]

After the date of viability has passed it's flat out murder in my opinion.

No argument here.   BIG difference between that cutoff (24 weeks?) and what states are trying to get with 6 weeks.  

Haven't seen you around the threads for a bit - hope all is well heading into the holiday season.  

ETA:  There still could be medical reasons for that procedure after that threshold, but I think those are pretty rare.  

 

[ekbeats]

No argument here.   BIG difference between that cutoff (24 weeks?) and what states are trying to get with 6 weeks.  

Haven't seen you around the threads for a bit - hope all is well heading into the holiday season.  

Thanks KP.  I go through different phases in here.  Right now I'm really enjoying hearing what everyone else thinks.

 

[NCCommish]

After the date of viability has passed it's flat out murder in my opinion.

Well I would say in the case of "I just want an abortion" that is certainly  valid. But that isn't the only reason people get one and at that point in pregnancy there is pretty much always a valid medical reason for an abortion. Usually to due with the health of the mother but also possibly issues with the fetus. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

ultimately the legal theory is that where a law is held to be unconstitutional, it just can't be enforced by the government but it still exists unless it is repealed.  if there is a mechanism for private enforcement, then it can be enforced.  this is the brainchild of one of Scalia's clerks.

Ah, that's right.   So what would normally happen when a ban or law was challenged was they would basically "sue" the state, and the case would proceed that way.   What TX did was remove that and allow people to sue other people involved, therefore sidestepping that unconstitutional part.   So technically the 6 week abortion ban is unconstitutional, but they aren't doing anything about because of the way it was written/enforced.   

Then Cali follows suit with going after the 2A in a similar way.  

 

[the rover]

Ah, that's right.   So what would normally happen when a ban or law was challenged was they would basically "sue" the state, and the case would proceed that way.   What TX did was remove that and allow people to sue other people involved, therefore sidestepping that unconstitutional part.   So technically the 6 week abortion ban is unconstitutional, but they aren't doing anything about because of the way it was written/enforced.   

Then Cali follows suit with going after the 2A in a similar way.  

Exactly.  California forcing the SC's hand.  Everyone saw this move coming, which is why a gun rights group filed an amicus brief in the Texas case.  

Texas managed to tie abortion rights to the second amendment.  

 

[Sparky Big Time]

I wonder if returning the oversight of abortions to the states would not exacerbate the polarization of the nation even further?

The current flight of people from failed liberal policies could be really super charged if people migrate based on state abortion laws.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I wonder if returning the oversight of abortions to the states would not exacerbate the polarization of the nation even further?

The current flight of people from failed liberal policies could be really super charged if people migrate based on state abortion laws.

Possibly.  I imagine people will get bent out of shape over laws passed in states that they don't live in -- it's not like that doesn't happen now, though.  My hope is that overturning Roe finally turns down the heat on the judicial wars.  That would help a lot.

 

[whoknew]

Possibly.  I imagine people will get bent out of shape over laws passed in states that they don't live in -- it's not like that doesn't happen now, though.  My hope is that overturning Roe finally turns down the heat on the judicial wars.  That would help a lot.

I think that is highly unlikely. Abortion and the S.Ct. is used because it gets people to the polls. I'm confident they will find some other vote to get people to the polls. And the judicial wars will stay just as hot.

 

[Zow]

Possibly.  I imagine people will get bent out of shape over laws passed in states that they don't live in -- it's not like that doesn't happen now, though.  My hope is that overturning Roe finally turns down the heat on the judicial wars.  That would help a lot.

Casey arguably overturned Roe already. 

 

[kface]

Possibly.  I imagine people will get bent out of shape over laws passed in states that they don't live in -- it's not like that doesn't happen now, though.  My hope is that overturning Roe finally turns down the heat on the judicial wars.  That would help a lot.

That would be beneficial for sure and maybe it would tone everything down a little bit

That being said it would be interesting to see which way the heat went. Certainly places like California would ban all state funded travel to states that enacted anti abortion laws.  And certainly the anti abortion folks would do everything in their power to make sure people can't get out of state to have one.

Certainly abortions could become a real economic boom to states that allow it.  55,440 abortions were provided in Texas alone.  That's probably 2 nights in a hotel 55,000 times, meals etc...all in a state that allows it

 

[Sinn Fein]

Possibly.  I imagine people will get bent out of shape over laws passed in states that they don't live in -- it's not like that doesn't happen now, though.  My hope is that overturning Roe finally turns down the heat on the judicial wars.  That would help a lot.

Isn't that like getting in one last punch, and then saying its time for peace?

 

[Stealthycat]

But that isn't the only reason people get one

why do women get abortions? what do the numbers say? 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

why do women get abortions? what do the numbers say? 

Abortions are performed to defend the life and welfare of the mother.  In this case "life" isn't limited to life or death but also includes perceived "quality of life".  "Welfare" includes the physical, mental,  emotional, and/or economic welfare.   I think most any other reason such as issues with the fetus itself or rape or incest can be safely pigeonholed into one or more of these buckets to keep things simple.

 

[NCCommish]

why do women get abortions? what do the numbers say? 

Well first you removed all context as we were talking about later term abortions.

And to be frank I think you've made it pretty clear you have zero interest in why women have abortions as you've decided that for you it's wrong, but, that isn't good enough is it? No because you want to force your personal morality on others with little regard for them or their lives. You really don't care why women make what is one of the hardest decisions that most will make in their lifetimes. So any answer I give will be rejected in your zeal to make sure everyone does what you want.

 

[Stealthycat]

Abortions are performed to defend the life and welfare of the mother.  In this case "life" isn't limited to life or death but also includes perceived "quality of life".  "Welfare" includes the physical, mental,  emotional, and/or economic welfare.   I think most any other reason such as issues with the fetus itself or rape or incest can be safely pigeonholed into one or more of these buckets to keep things simple.

I mean the statistics .... which shows majority of abortions are for convenience, not health of mother or rape/incest

potential "perceived" quality of life can never be used as a measurement of justification for killing someone .... if it is, we can kill millions and have a good nights sleep I guess? :(  

 

[Stealthycat]

Well first you removed all context as we were talking about later term abortions.

And to be frank I think you've made it pretty clear you have zero interest in why women have abortions as you've decided that for you it's wrong, but, that isn't good enough is it? No because you want to force your personal morality on others with little regard for them or their lives. You really don't care why women make what is one of the hardest decisions that most will make in their lifetimes. So any answer I give will be rejected in your zeal to make sure everyone does what you want.

I have great interest in the why's behind it - that's why I'm familiar with the percentages and also all the trauma that continues throughout the lives of the women who have them.

I want to force my personal morality on high school kids to not shoot up schools - yes. I want to force my morality on people driving drunk - yes. I want to force my morality on people blowing their minds on hard drugs - yes. I want to force my morality on killing unborn babies - yes.

all of that is true and in the same breaths, people who want to do all the above try and force their views as well. its how it goes  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I mean the statistics .... which shows majority of abortions are for convenience, not health of mother ...

100% of pregnancies pose a health threat to the pregnant woman. 100% of the pregnancies for what you call convenience falls into threats to both "life" and "welfare" as I described them.

potential "perceived" quality of life can never be used as a measurement of justification for killing someone ....

Yet you strap up everyday to protect your property (among other things).

 

[Stealthycat]

100% of pregnancies pose a health threat to the pregnant woman. 100% of the pregnancies for what you call convenience falls into threats to both "life" and "welfare" as I described them.

Yet you strap up everyday to protect your property (among other things).

the reasons women have abortions

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute

majority of reasons are out of convivences to the mother 

 

[parasaurolophus]

100% of pregnancies pose a health threat to the pregnant woman. 100% of the pregnancies for what you call convenience falls into threats to both "life" and "welfare" as I described them.

Are abortions risk free for women? 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are abortions risk free for women? 

Abortions are generally less risky for women than childbirth.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

100% of pregnancies pose a health threat to the pregnant woman. 100% of the pregnancies for what you call convenience falls into threats to both "life" and "welfare" as I described them.

Yet you strap up everyday to protect your property (among other things).

the reasons women have abortions

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute

majority of reasons are out of convivences to the mother 

So!  That is just shorthand for carrying a baby will thwart the short term and/or long term "pursuit of happiness", the "the physical, mental,  emotional, and/or economic welfare" which can be summarized as "quality of life".  It doesn't rebut any point made.  It doesn't sway me in any way that these are worse or better reasons for allowing abortion.  It does reconfirm that the now broken record message that most people that say they are 100% a single issue voter and that issue is abortion consistently vote for politicians that prioritize the very policy choices that drive up the demand to conveniently get out of a pregnancy.  If we assume these people are honest in their deeply felt position how do we correct this terrible disconnect?  How do we stop them from creating more and more demand for the very thing they are so passionate about.  I wish I knew.  Instead we get the "but it is just convenience" not to inform these policy choices but to argue against them.  How can this be?